Browse thread
(Mostly) Functional Design?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2005-07-24 (02:31) |
From: | Paul Snively <psnively@m...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Some Clarifications |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jul 23, 2005, at 5:04 PM, Robert Morelli wrote: > To be entirely frank, I am put off by the style of your comments. Considering that you're the one who joined the thread by saying: "This seems as good a time as any to delurk and jump on a soap box" and "The FP paradigm is intrinsically poorly adapted to the kind of large scale design concepts that concern most programmers. Object oriented programming is a much better match, not because of a conspiracy of commercial giants in the software tool business, but because of intrinsic technical reasons. Functional programming is a niche technology ideally suited to simple domains like language tools and formal methods. It does not have much to say about complicated systems," I have to say that complaining about the style of others' comments here takes considerably bigger brass balls than I possess. Congratulations. Best regards, Paul Snively -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkLi/W0ACgkQO3fYpochAqLl1gCffYj4LbbCOlQqRijBrME7v38/ jJkAnR2d6aCqCfBFS3yB/19Jn+xcdfPj =4L0x -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----